Echoes in Eternity

I don't think I've mentioned this before, but Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine have just recently finished up a trial in which they were taken before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (a misnomer if there ever was one) on charges that the excerpt of Steyn's book America Alone, printed in Maclean's, was hate speech and worthy of sanctions. Having read the book (and enjoyed it immensely), I can say quite confidently that Steyn is anything but hateful in it. The complainants argued that one is not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and not expect to be arrested on disturbing the peace. But, as the defense pointed out, one is allowed (and in fact morally obligated) to yell "Fire!" if they indeed believe and see evidence that the theater is actually ablaze.

However, this is beside the point. What is really at stake here is not a better definition of hate (though that would be nice). What matters most in this case is the idea of freedom of speech and thought. Can a media outlet like Maclean's have the right to publish whatever they choose without the danger of being hauled before a tribunal? Can a writer like Mark Steyn (one of the most brilliant columnists of today) think and say what he wants without the threat of legal injunctions? Or, more closer to home for Christians, can a follower of Jesus quote a Bible verse without fear of prosecution? In Canada, the answer is "no" on all three counts. As John Leo writes this week,

[t]he human-rights tribunals are a censor’s dream. Under Canada’s human-rights act, commissioners can convict if they believe any published material is “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” Since they are “remedial” institutions and not real courts, they need not follow strict legal procedures or grant traditional rights of the accused. No one goes to prison, but the panels can fine and silence people at will — and run up the lawyer bills for years. Truth is no defense, and commissioners are authorized to confiscate a computer without a warrant. Evidence can be woefully flimsy.

One such case of tribunal persecution for nearly six years is the Rev. Stephen Bossoin.

In 2002, the Rev. Stephen Bossoin, a Canadian pastor and youth worker, ran afoul of one of these kangaroo courts. He wrote a testy letter about homosexuals to his local newspaper, the Red Deer (Alberta) Advocate, complaining bitterly that Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and other groups were using taxpayer money to propagandize young children in public schools.

Darren Lund, a professor at the University of Calgary, hauled Boissoin before the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which investigated him for holding homosexuals up to hatred and contempt. After nearly six years of hearings, delays, and argument about the letter, the tribunal convicted him and his group, the Concerned Christian Coalition. As punishment, Boissoin was ordered to pay a hefty fine, apologize in writing and never again make any negative remarks about homosexuality in speeches, on the Internet, or anywhere else.
...
Christians and conservatives are on the defensive because gays are quick to file charges. After running an ad listing Biblical references to homosexuality, a Saskatoon newspaper and man who placed the ad each had to pay $1,500 to three aggrieved gay complaintants. Another Saskatchewan man, convicted for spreading hatred against gays, had complained about an ad in a gay newspaper seeking boys for activities and specifically mentioning that their age was “not so relevant.” Catholic Insight magazine is also under investigation for commentary protested by gays.

It's a mad, mad world.